Chennai Court March 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hotel Ambassador, Rep. by Its Executive Assistant Manager, Mr. Vasant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ826Mad; (2005)3MLJ569
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 10.03.2004. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent/employee was working in the appellant's establishment as Office Boy in Grade VI on monthly wages of Rs.600/-. In view of his good performance the management by order dated 24.11.1986 promoted him as Security Guard in the Security Department in Grade V. However, by his letter dated 29.11.1986 he refused to accept the promotion and expressed his desire to continue as Office Boy. However, without taking into consideration the said letter of the 2nd respondent the management issued a charge sheet cum show cause notice dated 12.12.1986 calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Since, the 2nd respondent was not permitted to continue as Office Boy, he raised an industrial dispute which was r...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Executive Director, Southern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ482Mad; (2005)3MLJ30
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 27.9.2002.2. We have heard Mr. AL. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. R. Natarajan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. S. Manikumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. None has appeared for the fourth respondent although the name of the counsel for the fourth respondent has been shown in the cause list.3. The writ petitioner is a Trade Union and in the writ petition it prayed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Registration Order dated 30.11.1992 and direct the third respondent Indian Oil Corporation to consider the claim of the workers of the petitioner Union for absorption and regularisation according to law.4. The facts in detail are given in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same. The learned single Judge in paragraph 16 of his judg...
The Management of T.i. Diamond ChaIn Limited Vs. P.L. Ramanathan and t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR714]; (2005)IILLJ1081Mad; (2005)3MLJ415
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned orders dated 14-9-1999 and 26-11-1998 respectively passed by the learned single Judge.2. The respondent-workman was working as a Clerk in the appellant-Management. On 16-10-1981 at about 5.00 p.m. while he was leaving the factory premises, he was checked by the security personnel, and he was found to be in possession of a chain in his bag. The respondent-workman was charge-sheeted for committing the theft of the chain and after an enquiry in which he was given an opportunity of hearing, he was found guilty and dismissed on 2-11-1982. He raised an industrial dispute and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, which confirmed the finding of guilt. However, the labour court held that since the workman had been working for fifteen years and the value of the subject-matter of theft was only Rs.30/-, he should be reinstated with 50% backwages. 3. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that once th...
The Management of Hindustan Teleprinters Employees Co-operative Thrift ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ138Mad; (2005)3MLJ375
Markandey Katju, C.J1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5.8.1998. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The appellant is the Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society, which is run for the benefit of the workers of the Hindustan Teleprinters Limited, which is the company registered under the Indian Companies Act. No outsider is permitted to be either a member of the society or to utilise its facilities.3. The second respondent in the writ petition was taken as an employee of the petitioner society in the year 1976. Since there were allegations of misappropriation and defalcations against the second respondent, the writ petitioner suspended him by order dated 26.3.1981 and a charge memo was issued on 7.8.1981. An explanation was given by the second respondent on 25.8.1981 denying the charges. 4. Meanwhile, since the petitioner was a co-operative society, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societ...
V. Appu (Deceased) and Ors. Vs. St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC343
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1993 passed in A.S. No. 42 of 1990 on the file of the District Court, The Nilgiris reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.6.1990 made in O.S. No. 6 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudalur, the defendants have come forward with this second appeal. 2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:a. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the 'A' schedule property. As per the order of the Settlement Thasildar No. II (Enquiry) Gudalur, the ' A' Schedule property has been treated as Church Poramboke under Section 11 (d) of the Giudalur Janmam Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act No. 24of 1969. The Church is the 'A' schedule property constructed several years ago. In January 1981, the defendant, who has no title and right over the said property, trespassed into the area and put up construction. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 2.12.1981 requesting the panchayat not to give a...
Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Secretary to Government of Pondicher ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC169
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. In our order we will refer the parties to the writ petitions as employer and employee respectively for the purpose of convenience. The employee went before the Tribunal in O. A. Nos: 193 of 2002 and 194 of 2002, the former one to quash the charge memo dated 26.12.2000 and the later one to promote him to the next higher post. The Tribunal sustained the points put forward by the employee. Therefore, the employer is before this Court in these two writ petitions.2. The following facts are not in dispute:'On 17.3.1992, the employee was served with a charge memo; he submitted his explanation in March 1992 itself; the employee challenged the validity of the charge memo by filing O. A. No: 689 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal; on 7.10.1994 the original application was dismissed meaning thereby the validity of the charge memo was upheld; the enquiring authority sent his proceedings dated 20.3.1997 returning the papers to the employer; on 26.12.200...
Babu and ors. Vs. Sub-inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC436
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This Criminal Original petition is to quash the order dated 24.12.2004 in M.C.No. 9 of 2004 R.C.6849/2004-A4 passed by the Executive Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Ponneri, under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond with sureties for their good behaviour for such a period not exceeding three years, the Magistrate thinks fit.2. On a perusal or the records would reveal that by the proceedings dated 24.12.2004, in M.C.No. 9/2004 Rc.6849/2004/A4, the Executive Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Ponneri, has issued the impugned show cause notice against the 79 individuals including a dead person by name Munusamy and this notice was issued pertaining to action under Section 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C.3. It was contended in the notice that the petitioners live by the banks of the Kosasthalai river and are illegally mining sand from that ri...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: 2006(203)ELT20(Mad)
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The question sought to be raised under section 35H of the Central Excise Act is as follows:-'Whether the Hon'ble CEGAT is correct in holding that resultant product is not cotton carded or combed but blended cotton when note 2(A) to section XI of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 clearly states that a mixture of two or more textile materials are to be classified as if consisting wholly of that one textile material which predominates by weight over any other single textile material.'2. Learned counsel for the assessee has rightly pointed out that this question relates to classification and hence under section 35L of the Central Excise Act an appeal lies only to the Supreme Court and not to the High Court. We agree with the said submission and hence we dismiss this application....
Palaniappan, Vs. Govindaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC282; (2005)2MLJ541
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 852 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. 2. The revision is filed against the dismissal of I.A. No. 517 of 2002 filed by the revision petitioners seeking to amend the plaint with regard to the extent of the land in possession of the plaintiffs as 1.50 acres instead of 2.40 acres and also in describing the boundaries. The trial Court dismissed the petition. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed this revision.3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5, 9 and 10 and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 7 and 8.4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that inasmuch as they came to know that the plaintiffs are in possession of only 1.50 acres and not in 2.40 acres as described in the plaint and consequently, the boundaries also have to ch...
M. Padmavathi Vs. C. Senthilvelan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC275
P. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Tirupur dated 28.4.2003 made in I.A. No. 794 of 2002 in O.S. No. 42 of 2002 in and by which the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree has been dismissed.3. Heard both sides. The appellant herein, defendant in O.S.No.556 of 2000, which was renumbered as O.S.No.42 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Tirupur, did not appear when the suit was posted on 18.11.2002 for examination of P.W.1. After recording her absence, the Court below set her ex parte and passed an ex parte decree on 18.11.2002. Thereafter, she filed I.A.No.794 of 2002 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree setting out reasons for her illness and also the illness of her husband. The Court below, on g...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »